The email fiasco was just absurd and such a stupid "technology goes haywire" TV mishap. And they assassinated the characterization of Allison Pill's character from the pilot. I felt like I was watching a new character I'd never met before.

I thought Pill was turrible in that epi. The part where she was acting drunk was just unbelievably bad.

Not all shows come out firing on all cylinders like Thrones did. Newsroom has a great setup and there is plenty of room for the show to grow. Sorkin just needs to find these characters direction for right now. Does Pill's character remind anyone else of Natalie from Sports Night or just me?

While there is a lot wrong with TWD, I still enjoy the show. There are some good things about it: a few of the characters are really well done, the production value is top notch, and it looks like this next season might start to get good. There are a lot of things wrong with it, but there are good things too.

The way Brodeur and Xio are talking, there is nothing redeeming about The Newsroom at all. Why watch it?

While there is a lot wrong with TWD, I still enjoy the show. There are some good things about it: a few of the characters are really well done, the production value is top notch, and it looks like this next season might start to get good. There are a lot of things wrong with it, but there are good things too.

The way Brodeur and Xio are talking, there is nothing redeeming about The Newsroom at all. Why watch it?

The best part about it is that we do agree that right now the show has some flaws. I don't remember us saying it was the best debut for a show ever and it's above reproach. If the show was written by D. Smith and not A. Sorkin they wouldn't be complaining.

So, what you're telling me is that the clip of Jeff Daniels ripping that blonde girl a new one about America is all I needed to see?

Absolutely.

That scene has literally nothing to do with the rest of the series and will stand as the best scene of the show for its duration. The pre-release trailers for this show were unfairly misleading to viewers, in my opinion. I know that's very often the norm for TV shows trying to stir up initial viewership, but the entire scene was obviously written only as a cheap trick to generate interest. It's essentially a throw away scene by episode 2.

It's funny how you like to point out flaws in shows yet you were a huge Lost fanboy. What's that about?

LOST was a sci-fi, fantasy show. The Newsroom is supposed to be a realistic drama set in the real world that expects you to take it seriously.

Additionally, I've come to expect more of a TV since the years when LOST aired. Call it the Mad Men/Breaking Bad effect, or whatever you want. But The Newsroom is not good television.

I don't see why my liking of one old show (that despite its flaws is still critically revered) means my opinions on new shows are somehow invalid.

You guys complaining about me complaining is just stupid. Are you upset that I'm critical of something you like? I don't think I've seen any of you guys give an actual defense of the show. Your comments are all limited to "I like it" or "It has potential." Stick your neck out there and ******* say something specific if you think Brodeur and I (and basically every TV critic) are wrong.

The best part about it is that we do agree that right now the show has some flaws. I don't remember us saying it was the best debut for a show ever and it's above reproach. If the show was written by D. Smith and not A. Sorkin they wouldn't be complaining.

That's not even remotely true. I've never watched a single episode of any of Sorkin's previous TV shows. I think the only Sorkin movie I've seen is The Social Network.

So, what you're telling me is that the clip of Jeff Daniels ripping that blonde girl a new one about America is all I needed to see?

That's been the highlight. But I really like him and Sam Waterson working together as well. The show has some great characters I just don't see how they can ever make the plot line turn into something as awesome as we have come to expect from HBO shows.

Does anyone still watch Weeds? I know it's gotten way worse since the start but at this point I feel obligated to finish it since its on the last season.

The first three seasons were awesome tv. Fell off some after they moved to Mexico. Took a huge nose dive when they were on the run. Decent in NYC, and I really have no idea what to expect with this season.

LOST was a sci-fi, fantasy show. The Newsroom is supposed to be a realistic drama set in the real world that expects you to take it seriously.

Additionally, I've come to expect more of a TV since the years when LOST aired. Call it the Mad Men/Breaking Bad effect, or whatever you want. But The Newsroom is not good television.

I don't see why my liking of one old show (that despite its flaws is still critically revered) means my opinions on new shows are somehow invalid.

You guys complaining about me complaining is just stupid. Are you upset that I'm critical of something you like? I don't think I've seen any of you guys give an actual defense of the show. Your comments are all limited to "I like it" or "It has potential." Stick your neck out there and ******* say something specific if you think Brodeur and I (and basically every TV critic) are wrong.

Here's your problem. Sorkin writes in which he believes how things should be handled in an idiyllic way. They aspire to present the new show in a non bias fashion where the ratings don't matter one iota. No that's not realistic. It was the same with The West Wing, Sports Night, and almost all the movies he did as well. By going back and using old news stories Sorkin wants the audience to see the ways in which he believes matters should be handled. It's why in the opening credits they have Murrow and Cronkite who would possibly not even have a job if they did the news in today's society because of how they strived to present the news with only facts. A realistic portrayal of a newsroom is not what Sorkin is trying to present.

Here's your problem. Sorkin writes in which he believes how things should be handled in an idiyllic way. They aspire to present the new show in a non bias fashion where the ratings don't matter one iota. No that's not realistic. It was the same with The West Wing, Sports Night, and almost all the movies he did as well. By going back and using old news stories Sorkin wants the audience to see the ways in which he believes matters should be handled. It's why in the opening credits they have Murrow and Cronkite who would possibly not even have a job if they did the news in today's society because of how they strived to present the news with only facts. A realistic portrayal of a newsroom is not what Sorkin is trying to present.

That's all fine and dandy. If you're willing to forgive all that and watch the show through "The Sorkin Filter," good for you. But does that address more than 25% of my grievances with the show? Nope.

I don't have a problem with the journalistic mechanisms or the premise of the news broadcast. It's the goofy and fluctuating characterization, the high-minded preachiness, the decision to set the show in the past to allow for "cherry picking" retrospective political and media commentary, the artificial-sounding dialogue, the sitcom-like mishaps, etc, etc.

The pilot episode had SOME things I liked. The show airs on HBO, so I expect that it can improve. I anticipated this show for a long time because, as I've said, it relates to my profession. But there's no reason I shouldn't call it like I see it and be critical where the show invites criticism.

You guys that complain about someone expressing a dissenting opinion need to either get over yourselves.

I don't care if you dislike the show it's just funny to me that you're going to waste time watching something you don't enjoy. Also, on the last page you said you wouldn't like the show no matter who wrote but then you insert the "Sorkin Filter" comment. You have to know what the writer is trying to establish in order to fairly critique the show. You pointed out how you think it's supposed to a realistic portrayal of a new show but that's not what Sorkin is going for. He likes to show the viewers what we should strive to become but of course it will be in his own view. The dialouge and the sitcom like mishaps are 100% Sorkin. You either like it or you don't. I don't mind you criticizing the show but you're coming off just as preachy as Sorkin.